Šarli Ebdo

[Eraserhead]

U bombardovanju je poginulo oko 1000 vojnika i prema HRW oko 500 civila. I uopste poenta nije bila da stavljamo brojeve na kant vec da su se dogodile stvari pre tog bombardovanja koje su do njega dovele. Sad meni je jasno da si ti izgubio svaku kontrolu nad svojim ponasanjem i da si dezintegrisao sebi razum, tako da cu te zamoliti da me zaobidjes.

[Muwan]

I uopste poenta nije bila da stavljamo brojeve na kant vec da su se dogodile stvari pre tog bombardovanja koje su do njega dovele.

 

Pa zbog čega onda ne prihvataš da su se isto tako dogodile stvari koje su dovele do ruskog vršljanja po Ukrajini, već uporno tvrdiš kako je čitava stvar samo i isključivo posledica ludila jednog zlog imperatora?

[Eraserhead]

Pa zbog čega onda ne prihvataš da su se isto tako dogodile stvari koje su dovele do ruskog vršljanja po Ukrajini, već uporno tvrdiš kako je čitava stvar samo i isključivo posledica ludila jednog zlog imperatora?

 

 

Pa jesu ali mislim da rat nije bio adekvatna kontramera i da je celu situaciju samo vrlo pogorsao. Mislim da i bombardovanje Jugoslavije nije bilo adekvatna mera za ono sto se izdesavalo posebno sto su oni koji su bombardovali pustili pre toga Milosevica da vrslja i cak i sa njih surovali kad im je odgovaralo. Potpuni strmopizd zapadne politike koliko i srpske.

[Budja]

И заштићен је као бели медвед. 

 

Que?

Ne vidim da je Eras uradio ista protiv pravila i duha foruma. Sve je u sluzbi diskusije.

[harper lee]

U bombardovanju je poginulo oko 1000 vojnika i prema HRW oko 500 civila. I uopste poenta nije bila da stavljamo brojeve na kant vec da su se dogodile stvari pre tog bombardovanja koje su do njega dovele. Sad meni je jasno da si ti izgubio svaku kontrolu nad svojim ponasanjem i da si dezintegrisao sebi razum, tako da cu te zamoliti da me zaobidjes.

 

U svakom od tih sukoba pojedinacno je poginulo vise ljudi i doslo do veceg razaranja nego za vreme bombardovanja.

 

 

U bombardovanju je poginulo oko 1000 vojnika i prema HRW oko 500 civila. I uopste poenta nije bila da stavljamo brojeve na kant vec da su se dogodile stvari pre tog bombardovanja koje su do njega dovele. Sad meni je jasno da si ti izgubio svaku kontrolu nad svojim ponasanjem i da si dezintegrisao sebi razum, tako da cu te zamoliti da me zaobidjes.

 

 

Nije tacno, toliko je poginulo direktno od bombardovanja, a sta si napisao evo ga gore da to neko ne bi poverovao kako se radi o integritetu necijeg razuma a ne o necijem potpunom odsustvu morala.

 

Kao sto rekoh, ni po cemu se ne razlikujes od onih koji tanrdcu o vojnim zrtvama u Srebrenici, samo sto nastupas iz drugacije ideoloske pozicije. Kapiram da ce ti i ovo istolerisati, samo da stikliram da ne prodje neopazeno.

[Budja]

U svakom od tih sukoba pojedinacno je poginulo vise ljudi i doslo do veceg razaranja nego za vreme bombardovanja.

 

 

 

 

Nije tacno, toliko je poginulo direktno od bombardovanja, a sta si napisao evo ga gore da to neko ne bi poverovao kako se radi o integritetu necijeg razuma a ne o necijem potpunom odsustvu morala.

 

Kao sto rekoh, ni po cemu se ne razlikujes od onih koji tanrdcu o vojnim zrtvama u Srebrenici, samo sto nastupas iz drugacije ideoloske pozicije. Kapiram da ce ti i ovo istolerisati, samo da stikliram da ne prodje neopazeno.

 

Bezveze ti je ova hajka na Erasa.

 

Pogotovo sto je jasno da je mislio na zrtve u Srbiji a ne albanske zrtve koje su, kako pretpostavljam iz tvog izlaganja, uracunate u brojke od 8 do 12 hiljada, a ako jesu, nije jasno koliko je tu zrtava bombardovanja NATOa a koliko "operacije" vojske i ostalih na terenu.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Budja

[nera]

Bezveze ti je ova hajka na Erasa.

 

 

 

Pa i nije hajka, Eraser standardno prosipa svoju mentalnu gimnastiku dok ljudi ne posize... meni je jedino krivo sto se uopste iko uzbudjuje oko toga i sto mu odgovara... cak nije ni pitanje suprostavljenog stava, bar da jeste, nego kao pokvarena kukavica, podmetne jaje pa vadi iz gnezda cim ga primete... nema on nikakv stav vec samo unedogled ponavlja jedno te isto te jedno te isto i tako dok citaoci ili posize ili odustanu... ja tu ne vidim nikakv osnov za diskusiju.

[Eraserhead]

U svakom od tih sukoba pojedinacno je poginulo vise ljudi i doslo do veceg razaranja nego za vreme bombardovanja.

 

 

 

 

Nije tacno, toliko je poginulo direktno od bombardovanja, a sta si napisao evo ga gore da to neko ne bi poverovao kako se radi o integritetu necijeg razuma a ne o necijem potpunom odsustvu morala.

 

Kao sto rekoh, ni po cemu se ne razlikujes od onih koji tanrdcu o vojnim zrtvama u Srebrenici, samo sto nastupas iz drugacije ideoloske pozicije. Kapiram da ce ti i ovo istolerisati, samo da stikliram da ne prodje neopazeno.

 

 

Vrlo si bezobrazan sto je od tebe i ocekivano. Pitanje je koliko je ljudi poginulo od samog bombardovanja a ne koliko su jos srpska vojska i OVK pobili tokom bombardovanja. Poenta je, a to si vesto izbegao da je bombardovanje posledica prethodnih desavanja, a u tim desavanjima je mahom ginulo vise ljudi nego u samom bombardovanju. Ti nastavi da verujes u sta hoces samo cu te zamoliti jos jednom da me zaobidjes jer ja vec duze vreme izbegavam tvoje izlive frustracija po forumu.

 

 

Pa i nije hajka, Eraser standardno prosipa svoju mentalnu gimnastiku dok ljudi ne posize... meni je jedino krivo sto se uopste iko uzbudjuje oko toga i sto mu odgovara... cak nije ni pitanje suprostavljenog stava, bar da jeste, nego kao pokvarena kukavica, podmetne jaje pa vadi iz gnezda cim ga primete... nema on nikakv stav vec samo unedogled ponavlja jedno te isto te jedno te isto i tako dok citaoci ili posize ili odustanu... ja tu ne vidim nikakv osnov za diskusiju.

 

 

Ja znam da bi mnogima bilo lepse da se tapsu po ramenu  i da nista ne uzdrmava njihov mali svet istomisljenika. Uostalom forumi prirodno klize ka tome. Dok sam na ovom forumu sto se mene tice toga nece biti. Mogu da me banuju ako je to cilj ovog foruma sto verujem da nije ili ako to nekome ne odgovara moze da nadje neki drugi forum.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Eraserhead

[Weenie Pooh]

Ako su navodi u ovom tekstu makar i samo delimično tačni, zanimljivo je da tebi termin suicided od svega najviše bode oči.

 

Za ostale, da ne listate unazad: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/26/fredou/

 

Koji navodi, čoveče? Klasično konspiratorsko "ima tu nešto" nabacivanje bez da se išta konkretno tvrdi. Ekskluziva: Majka još nije dobila rezultate autopsije! Komesar MUP-a nije joj izjavio saučešće, a ovi što jesu izjavili kažu da je bilo samoubistvo! Niko nije čuo pucanj, a prigušivača nema! Policija nije objavila sa kim je obavio poslednji telefonski razgovor! Zaključak izvucite sami!

 

Zato da, "suicided" mi je najzanimljiviji detalj.

[harper lee]

Bezveze ti je ova hajka na Erasa.

 

Pogotovo sto je jasno da je mislio na zrtve u Srbiji a ne albanske zrtve koje su, kako pretpostavljam iz tvog izlaganja, uracunate u brojke od 8 do 12 hiljada, a ako jesu, nije jasno koliko je tu zrtava bombardovanja NATOa a koliko "operacije" vojske i ostalih na terenu.

 

Kakve veze ima da li su albanske ili srpske zrtve u pitanju? Nisu ni sve zrtve u Bosni ubile srpske snage pa to ne umanjuje odgovornost za otpocinjanje rata i stvaranje konteksta da toliko ljudi pogine. Kao sto cenjeni kolega Eraser malopre rece, dok sam ja na forumu nece moci da se poturaju lazljive mantre State Departmenta o nuznosti bombardovanja, ubijanja tolikog broja ljudi i stvaranja uslova da bude ubijeno jos sedam ili osam puta vise nego sto je ubijeno, e da se, o uzasa, ne bi ponovo desila nezapamcena katastrofa ubijanja miliona ljudi u, mozes misliti, Dubrovniku, pinaklu razaranja i ubijanja kakvom to drugarsko i uljudno bombardovanje SRJ ne moze ni da prismrdi.

 

Prihvatam da se radi o licnom motivu posto u ovom slucaju zastupam bespotrebno ugasene i upropastene zivote ljudi sa kojima sam ziveo i do kojih mi je stalo ali to nimalo ne umanjuje statisticku tacnost i logicku zasnovanost teze da je ovaj najnoviji Irejzerov pokusaj da opravda ili makar umanji znacaj bombardovanja kao zlocina par excellence (ako vec otvaras mogucnost da se pise u fazonu sta je ko mislio a ne sta je ko napisao) sramotan i nedopustiv. Uostalom, ovo bas i nije tema na kojoj bi valjalo zastupati tezu da je dozvoljeno ubiti zbog imaginacije tako da bi ta linija odbrane State Department-a da je valjalo ubijati po SRJ zato sto su oni izmastali neku karikaturu od realnosti mogla i da omasi ovaj konkretan topik.

[Gandalf]

Zato da, "suicided" mi je najzanimljiviji detalj.

mozda nije u pitanju greska, suicided bi mogla biti aluzija na to da mozda nije samoubistvo. vec mu je nesto ucinjeno.

[Budja]

Pa i nije hajka, Eraser standardno prosipa svoju mentalnu gimnastiku dok ljudi ne posize... meni je jedino krivo sto se uopste iko uzbudjuje oko toga i sto mu odgovara... cak nije ni pitanje suprostavljenog stava, bar da jeste, nego kao pokvarena kukavica, podmetne jaje pa vadi iz gnezda cim ga primete... nema on nikakv stav vec samo unedogled ponavlja jedno te isto te jedno te isto i tako dok citaoci ili posize ili odustanu... ja tu ne vidim nikakv osnov za diskusiju.

 

Sto sve zajedno ne znaci da treba da se poziva moderacije da ne tolerise Erasa.

Koncept, ponavljanje, dosada, razvlacenje cinjenica to je sve dozvoljeno u diskusiji.

Uostalom, zasto se isti arsin prosudjivanja ne primenjuje na Hellu?

 

Apsolutno nicim iskazanim Eraser nije prekrsio pravila Foruma, niti je ikada licno prozivao.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Budja

[Hamlet Strašni]

niko ne dira nikoga, nastavite o temi

 

Послато са SM-G900F уз помоћ Тапатока

[Prospero]

svašta nešto o širim okolnostima i trendovima. vrti se oko šarli tematike, ali nije baš moguće prepričati čaršaf pa preporučujem da se pročita ceo:
 

The West, Islam, and the Last Stand of the WEIRD
January 21, 2015


Yet again, Pope Francis has stirred up the Western commentariat by addressing social issues, this time contraception and having babies. Every time this pope talks about matters sexual there are gasps from enlightened Western post-moderns, who seem shocked that Francis is actually a Catholic. They are so accustomed to the laid-back, non-judgmental “cafeteria Catholicism” around them that a Catholic cleric, much less the Pope of Rome, publicly endorsing what the church actually teaches on such issues, however gently, leads to dropped jaws.

After all, Francis seems so nice and progressive, with his outreach to the poor and welcoming things stated about gays and whatnot — these having been the source of consternation among some Catholic traditionalists — and then he turns out to be another old white guy with a lot of “sexual issues.” I am not a Catholic, but it never ceases to amaze me how educated Western post-moderns cannot seem to fathom that no pope is going to ditch centuries of social teaching just to get a nice write-up in Salon or Vox. Francis is a compassionate man, but as the head of the Catholic Church he advocates positions on matters sexual that seem profoundly outdated and literally unthinkable to many in the West today.

Unthinkability is the issue here. The WEIRD demographic, as I’ve explained before, standing for Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic, is wholly dominant among our media elites that play a huge role in forming opinions and judging the acceptability of the same. Over the last half-century the WEIRD vanguard has taken over the academy, the media, and the entertainment world; one of its better-known members is in the White House right now. Obama’s castigation in 2008 of “bitter” Americans who cling to guns and religion was a perfect one-sentence explanation of how WEIRDos view less educated and enlightened fellow citizens, which is no doubt why his opponents will cite it forever.

There is no tyranny as offensive as a cultural tyranny, of course, and just as affluent, educated post-moderns view their lessers with undisguised contempt, the guns-and-bibles brigade returns that contempt with interest. This goes some way to explaining why American politics has become so bitter in recent years: both sides simply hate each other and bother less and less to mask it.

The WEIRD contingent has had an impressive string of victories since the 1960’s, especially in America. Their record of wins, fast, may have no precedent in history, since culture tends to shift slowly, sometimes glacially. The culture war has been won, and the victory for the WEIRD side is essentially total. In the last fifty years, racial relations have been so dramatically transformed by government and culture, hand in hand, that racism, once casual among many whites, is totally unacceptable in anything resembling polite society. It speaks volumes that Jeffrey Dahmer, who murdered, dismembered and ate seventeen young men, many of them black and Hispanic, was at pains to make clear that, though he was a cannibalistic serial killer, he wasn’t racist: that fact he deemed important.

Even more transformational have been shifts in gender relations since the 1960’s, with American young women today being better educated than their male counterparts, with access to opportunities personal, professional, and sexual that their grandmothers could only have dreamed of. Some feminists now ask what good men are actually for, not in jest. Young men have noticed this seismic shift and numbers of them are dropping out of the race — professional and sexual — in a way their dads and granddads could not possibly comprehend. In Japan, this has become an official problem, and has a good deal to do with Japan’s staggering demographic crisis. As with race, feminism has triumphed so totally in just a couple generations that we have NGOs plus governmental bureaucracies hunting for evidence of racism or sexism, however fragmentary, to prove the need for more transformation. When young men lose interest in sex, as has occurred in Japan and is spreading in the West, something big is happening.

While race is of interest to the WEIRD demographic, sex is more central to their worldview. Catfights among progressives about determining who has more sexual privilege are fun to watch yet challenging for normals to comprehend. Here the LGBT issue has played a major role. Simply put, less than twenty-five years ago, gay issues were peripheral politically, confined to America’s far-Left fringe, while topics like gay marriage were never discussed by mainstream figures. Thanks to media and government action, now LGBT issues are given a place of importance in all discussions of social issues, while soon the Supreme Court will take up gay marriage, which may prove its most hot-button case since Roe v. Wade.

Regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, LGBT issues are another area where the culture war has turned out to be one-sided in the end. Opposition to gay marriage is fading fast, while it barely exists among younger Americans. However, just as with race and gender issues, LGBT advocates are showing minimal magnanimity in victory, preferring to double-down on public dissenters. Even the powerful are being driven from jobs and public life over their opposition, even when quiet, to gay marriage. There is more than a whiff of the Social Justice Warrior (SJW) mob about all this, and the idea of live-and-let live does not seem to be in fashion among the Cultural Marxist Left. It’s difficult to see how America avoids a serious clash between progressives and tradition-minded religious groups over all this.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Cultural Marxists have won fast, and their transformation of the post-modern West has been very quick by any historical standards, the Left is brimming with confidence that their revolution is final. Hence the rhetoric about their enemies being on “the wrong side of history,” heard regularly, even from Obama. But any historian will tell you that history is not read that simply, and is seldom quite so linear: ask Erich Honecker how that March of History worked out.

It’s tough to miss that the post-modern Western Left is immersed in WEIRD narratives so deeply that it is unable to recognize, much less tolerate, alternative viewpoints. We have come a long way from the Bolshevism of the last century, which after a brief period of Leninist experimentation in social matters, turned towards an aggressive traditionalism; Stalin and his Red minions had views on abortion, gender, and sexual minorities that would make FoxNews blush. The revolution needed soldiers and workers, meaning hard men, and what were women for if not to make them?

Today’s social revolutionaries have created a post-modern WEIRD paradise that does not seem to know what it wants save permanent revolution. How this new society can be maintained for long without enough children of its own is the great imponderable, since the signature achievement of the sexual revolution that began in the 1960’s, from any big-picture historical perspective, is the amazing decline in fecundity in any society it touches.

Mass immigration is the preferred solution for WEIRDos, because it gets them off the hook for reproducing while providing interesting ethnic restaurants, plus ample cheap labor to do the household chores that affluent progressives don’t seek to do  themselves (until recently many of these domestic tasks — cleaning, fixing, lawn-cutting — were assigned to a family’s children, who no longer exist in numbers).

In the United States, mass immigration, heavily from Latin America, is causing discontent but is seen as a nuisance, at most, by WEIRDos, who seldom know the working-class Americans who do see this as a serious threat to their economic and social well-being. In Europe, however, the influx comes heavily from Africa and Asia, and is mainly Muslim, leading to all kinds of problems, the most visible of them being terrorism.

The recent attacks around Paris have caused another outburst of introspection of a highly limited sort in the West. The Usual Suspects are, of course,explaining that all this unpleasantness has nothing to do with Islam. I’ve castigated this progressive myth-making already, as well as those on the other side, who seem to want a permanent war on Islam, which has more than a billion-and-a-half adherents.

Finding a middle path on discussing this problem is tricky but here we go. I have a Ph.D. in history, not Islamic Studies, which Islamist apologists insist you must if you discuss Islamic anything, but I’ve studied the subject in detail, I know Islam’s history and theology. Just as important, I’ve spent time in Muslim countries in many places, I’ve gotten to know many Muslims of diverse backgrounds: some remain my dear friends, some have been lovers (I came close to marrying a Muslim woman: that’s another story). Without further delay I shall engage in what SJWs call stereotyping and normals term analysis.

Issues of culture and development cannot be decoupled from discussions about the Muslim diaspora in the West. Pakistanis in America — many well educated professionals, nearly all speaking English — are frequently successful immigrants, many are notably patriotic and see no contradiction between their faith and their Americanism. Yet their illiterate co-nationals who come to Britain from the most backwards part of Pakistan — they bring their redneck habits, including cousin-marriage, to Yorkshire — are a breeding ground for crime and extremism. This is not all about Islam, other factors matter too, but we must be able to discuss Islam to understand what is going on.

France, which is home to a quarter of the twenty million Muslims living in Western Europe, likewise presents a complex picture that defies thumbnail assessment. The Parisian concept of laïcité, which was defended staunchly by Marine Le Pen in her New York Times op-ed demanding that France talk about Islamic extremism now, has been a success with more Muslim immigrants than many realize. There are millions of French Muslims, mainly of North African extraction, who have assimilated rather well to life on the other side of the Mediterranean, and many are well adjusted French patriots; some are even supporters of Le Pen’s Front national.

Westerners have a tough time understanding how Islam is actually lived by believers, while WEIRDos, thanks to their biases, seem incapable of grasping the essentials. In the first place, it must be understood that Islam is less a religion than a culture and a complete way of life. It has nothing to do with “religion” as defined by the post-Enlightenment West, which is comfortable with faiths that can be safely placed in a box ninety-five percent of the time, locked away when not in church, temple, or mosque.

Islam, being a programmatic faith not confined to the mosque, provides detailed commentary and rules on daily life, including matters sexual that invariably seem strange to post-modern Westerners, who view any infringement on personal sexuality as oppressive. This is a subject of regular mocking in parts of the Western press. Few care to note that Islam is very like Orthodox or Conservative Judaism in such matters.

Islam as actually lived by its adherents easily breaks down into three basic groups that are replicated everywhere there is Islam. Seeing how people live their faith, day in and day out, is illuminating. There is a genuinely radical element — perhaps ten percent, rather more in the West — that advocates Islamism, that is applying Islam in politics, by force if necessary. The aggressively pious vanguard of this sort pushes violence, even murderous barbarism, to further its aims. It has no sympathy for the West and seeks confrontation and victory, not dialogue. Its loudest adherents are usually dysfunctional sorts with a criminal past.

On the other side, maybe another ten percent, there are Muslims who actually reject the faith, de facto, but if they’re living in a Muslim country they keep relatively quiet about it, lest they be denounced as “apostates.” Many are well educated. Such atheists, or at least serious Islam-skeptics, are frequently encountered in the West; it’s seldom noted that many such people emigrate to freer countries precisely to be able to live their skepticism openly.

But the vast majority of Muslims fall into a big group that lives the faith as best they can, without questioning its essentials. They try, they fail, they keep trying. They usually make an effort during Ramadan, at least, and if a life crisis appears, they will pray and seek the comfort of the mosque; the rest of the time their lived faith is rather hit-or-miss. In other words, they are completely normal human beings.

It needs to be clear that these majoritarians do not question Islam: if pressed, they will state the problem, the failing, is with them, not the faith. It should be obvious that the group wholly absent from this division-into-threes is the post-modern Western skeptic, the nominal mainline Protestant, or perhaps a very Reform Jew, who’s down with gay marriage since it’s been “reinterpreted” in recent decades. Hipster Jesus — into you with your sins, cool with your ironic vibe — does not have a corollary in Islam. The hardest thing for WEIRDos, who view all religion as odd, and perhaps risible, when not dangerous, to grasp is —Muslims actually believe this stuff.

Not having been touched by the Enlightenment, much less post-modernism, Muslims are on a different planet, intellectually speaking, than WEIRDos. At best, they talk past each other. As someone who has advocated a tough approach to Muslim immigrants who do not seek to assimilate to Western norms, particularly if they have extreme views, some sympathy for them nevertheless is in order here.

It must be deeply confusing to any Muslim newcomer to France to encounter a place of such unbelief and debauchery as Paris, where raw sexuality is everywhere, women run free in every sense, and faiths of all kinds are mocked openly. Free speech is not a French priority, and certain kinds of speech are protected, while others are not. Since I cannot rationally explain why French law protects certain speech, and not others, I don’t expect an unlettered immigrant from West Africa to make sense of it all either.

The list of things that can get you thrown in a French jail for saying is long, including “offensive” speech against various racial, religious, and sexual minorities, but it must be mysterious to Muslims why gross public indecencies against the Prophet are tolerated when denial of the Holocaust, a purely human affair, is not. When a founder of Charlie Hebdo, the publication whose profane cartoons provoked mass murder, says that its editor, Stephane “Charb” Charbonnier, was a provocateur/jerk-off whose offensiveness got everybody killed, we can imagine what less sympathetic Muslims might feel about this case. Not least because Charb was no free speech advocate, rather a far-Left agitator who tried hard to get his political opponents banned while offending every traditionalist, of every stripe, he could.

To illustrate how complex this all actually is, allow me to sketch my good friend A., whom I’ve known for years, a highly assimilated French Muslim. His grandfather came from Algeria after a long career as a decorated French colonial soldier, one of the lucky harkis to escape the bloodbath after Algerian independence, when deGaulle condemned so many who had fought for France to an evil fate. A. has filled those shoes well as a soldier and then a career intelligence officer. His French patriotism is sincere and deep; he has visited Algeria a couple times, his command of Arabic being no greater than mine, and didn’t like it. France is his home, his patrie.

In matters of faith, A. is privately a modest skeptic, but he makes an effort during Ramadan, mostly to appease his father, a kind old gentleman who, like many do, turned to faith in an old age marked by illness and loneliness.  The rest of the year, A. regularly goes boozing and whoring like any counterintelligencer worth his salt. His ceaseless quest for the “right beurette” continues, unfulfilled. He is a Muslim and proud of it, but sincerely hates extremists and admits to feeling more than a little sympathy for the Front national, for its willingness to “stand up for France” (while A. is purely Algerian by background, he possesses a dislike of Germans to match anyone in France).

Yet A.’s views on many matters would distress WEIRDos. He thinks outright atheists are contemptible and views liberals with undisguised distaste, especially if they are Jewish and/or gay, and he is no fan of Israel. It should be noted that A. is no fonder of  newer Muslim immigrants who freeload on welfare. Yet his anti-Semitism is far from deep or uniform, and he reveres Éric Zemmour, a fellow Frenchman of (Jewish) Algerian descent, as someone “who says the truth.” A. wants Muslims to be respected yet thinks it would be best if jihadists were taken out over the ocean in helicopters, Argentinian junta style, and dropped into the deep from 5,000 feet.

What to make of all this? My friend represents a best-case scenario for Europe, a Muslim whose faith is modest, entirely private, and who feels sincerely at home in Europe, but I know his views on many issues would not pass progressive muster. Survey after survey demonstrates that Muslims in Europe broadly possess views that would be shocking to the WEIRD demographic. Significant portions of Europe’s Muslim community, particularly among more recent arrivals, espouse attitudes that are, at best, conditional in their condemnation of violence, i.e. jihad, while their views on Israel and Jews are implacably hostile.

Short of a coercive reeducation program worthy of Mao’s Cultural Revolution I’m not sure what can be done about all this in 2015. Even if Muslim immigration were halted tomorrow — which is surely not on the table yet — Western Europe will still possess twenty million Muslims, many quite unassimilated, who are reproducing at a rate far beyond the native population. It’s difficult to see how this can end well — or peacefully.

The tragedy is that European powers were, until recently, able to inspire loyalty from their Muslims. France got millions of African Muslims, like A.’s grandfather, to fight for their empire in both World Wars, and Britain managed the same. The Ottoman Empire’s pompous declaration of jihad in 1914, on behalf of the Central Powers, went nowhere as Muslim soldiers of the Indian Army turned out to be loyal to the British Empire, the world’s biggest Muslim power, even in battle against fellow Muslims.

Muslims in Russia proved equally faithful to the Tsar during World War I, that country’s aggressive Orthodox Christianity notwithstanding, while Austria-Hungary found that their Bosnian Muslim subjects were their most loyal and combative soldiers. In the Habsburgs’ last war, the 2nd Bosnian Regiment, the legendary Zweier Bosniaken, won more valor decorations than any other of the emperor’s regiments, while Bosnian Muslims died at the front at the highest rate of any of Vienna’s many ethnic groups.

Such tenacious loyalty to an “infidel” empire seems difficult to imagine a century later, but was understandable at the time, for the simple reason that Western colonial powers protected Islam and ensured Muslims could keep their faith and traditions even under an explicitly Christian occupier. Austria-Hungary’s 1878 invasion of Bosnia met stiff resistance from Muslims, but they were soon bought off with generous allowances for sharia, Islamic law, and Muslim conscripts in the Habsburg Army were led in prayer by imams in Austro-Hungarian uniform with a rigor many had never practiced in civilian life. The slogan, “On the path of Allah, for our Austrian homeland,” was cited by Bosnian troops headed to battle in 1914-1918, and it was no lie, for the Habsburgs protected Islam, and for any pious Muslim, Austria-Hungary counted as dar al-Islam.

How, then, are European countries today doing such a terrible job of assimilating Muslim immigrants? In the first place, Christianity has been replaced by secularism, often of an aggressive kind. We have changed; Muslims have not. The sort of in-your-face secularism that’s commonplace in Europe now is difficult for Muslims to relate to, having no resonance with their historical experience, and is viewed with contempt by many of them. Bonds of tribe and kin that have frayed in the West remain powerful among Muslims. Post-modern permissiveness in sexual matters is likewise met with bemused anger by many Muslims, some of whom gleefully rape European women they view as whores.

Crime is one of the great unmentionables in all this, preventing honest dialogue. In 2010, Éric Zemmour was convicted of racial incitement for stating that Muslim immigrants were grossly overrepresented among France’s violent criminals, though few could plausibly state he was wrong on the numbers. Over the last generation, France has created a serious problem in the suburbs of Paris, among other major cities, where Muslim ghettos are crowded with young people who seldom if ever work, living on welfare while plotting crimes of various sorts, while seething with resentment and hate for “infidels” around them. For some, this path of hatred leads to jihad. Here the Paris killers, with their obsession with angry American rap music, were a walking, vapid, and murderous cliche.

Many are now worried about low-grade warfare erupting across Western Europe, as jihadist cells go active and plant bombs and open fire. All over the European Union, in the aftermath of the Paris attacks, police and spies are watching would-be killers closely. Although there is no enduring security fix to this daunting problem, as I’ve explained before, consistent police and intelligence pressure on Salafi radicals can reduce terrorism, if the will exists to sustain such aggressive operations by the security services.

While more terrorism seems likely, it may not be anything as dramatic as alarmists and thrillers would promise. France already faces an Islamic insurgency of a low-grade kind — it is habitually downplayed by the authorities as “isolated incidents” that happen “at random” when shootings and driving cars into people is anything but random — that may continue on low-boil for years, claiming a few victims at a time, not dozens, much less hundreds. French inner cities may come to resemble shambolic American inner cities like Detroit or Chicago, where war-like casualty rates among civilians are similarly dismissed as “street crime,” with the difference that France’s troublemakers will be inspired by Salafi jihadism while being shockingly well armed. Needless to add, more militarization of police and society will follow.

It’s all too soon to tell. All-out civil war — think more Mad Max than Gettysburg — cannot be ruled out at this juncture. What is clear, however, is that Europe has no idea how to respond to this mounting crisis in any politically coherent fashion. Pushing Marine Le Pen, who heads the most popular political party in France, to the margins of the national dialogue about domestic extremism seems certain to increase political polarization when it needs to be reduced. As I’ve stated many times, unless Europe’s mainstream parties find a way to engage alienated voters of the sort to whom the FN and Germany’s PEGIDA appeal, they are surrendering this vital and politically explosive issue — which is only continuing to grow, especially among the young — to the friends of Vladimir Putin, whose commitment to democracy may be less than sincere.

In his professorial way, President Obama has told Europeans that they must assimilate immigrants better, in order to defeat terrorism, without explaining how this might be done. This lecturing has gone down as well in Europe as does European pontificating at Americans how we need to be nicer to blacks: cheap posturing is not a policy, anywhere. Moreover, Obama’s unhelpful hint leaves out the critical question of how many Muslims in Europe actually want to assimilate to a society that many of them openly loathe. (Neither does it help matters when major NATO leaders tell Muslim immigrants that under no circumstances should they assimilate to European ways.) Ample, if anecdotal, evidence suggests that Muslims in Europe who actually want to adopt European values are doing so, at their own pace, while Muslims who want no part of WEIRD anything are rejecting our post-modernism — some of them with violence.

None of this mess, which has been decades in the making, is conducive to easy solutions. There is no European-wide fix available; individual countries will need to fashion bespoke responses, based on the unique circumstances of their own Muslim populations. But a start to getting on the road to societal health would be making clear that immigrants who have no intention of accepting European political values should not enter Europe. In this vein, Ahmed Aboutaleb, the Moroccan-born mayor of Rotterdam, which possesses a large Muslim population, told co-religionists who are uncomfortable with European freedoms that they simply need to “f*** off.”

Such very free speech aside, institutionalized escapism continues to dominate Western debates on this issue. FoxNews recently caused a ruckus on both sides of the Atlantic with a discussion of Muslim “no-go” areas in Europe. The speaker overstated his case, as he tends to do, leading to hysteria among those eager to dismiss any notion that such areas, reminiscent of parts of North Ireland in the 1970’s where British security forces dared not operate, actually exist. The subsequent pontification has been strong, notwithstanding the fact that such no-go areas do exist in some parts of Europe, as any serious analysis would reveal. A brief discussion with any European cop or spook working operational counterterrorism would bring wisdom that would be discomforting to progressives.

The truth about Islam is that it approaches other religions from a triumphalist position, and always has. By default, it anticipates submission, not co-existence in any sense recognizable to the post-Enlightenment West. While its history is hardly all jihad, Islam’s “bloody borders” are a matter of record, not opinion. The last Ottoman effort to subdue Europe — one of many Islamic invasion efforts over the centuries — came in 1683, and was stopped, just barely, at Vienna. That sounds like a long time ago, but when King John Sobieski’s Polish cavalry appeared from the north to cut the Ottoman siege short, Harvard had been open for nearly a half-century, America’s coastal colonies were thickly settled, and Ben Franklin’s birth was barely two decades off. This was over three centuries ago, but hardly ancient history.

Many progressives fall prey to an argument, composed of equal parts narcissism and masochism, whereby jihadism and Muslim anger are really the West’s fault. The source of all this rage, you see, is to be found in recent Western “colonial blunders,” and certainly has nothing to with Islam. Colonialism has caused all sorts of bad issues — it’s difficult to see how France or Britain would have their big problems with Muslim immigrants without their former empires in the closet — but if it’s fair to point the finger at Western colonialism, it’s equally fair to cite all the centuries of examples when Muslim countries tried to overrun Europe at sword-point, killing, raping, and taking slaves all the way.

History matters and we must understand Muslim narratives about the past. This does not mean the West should agree with those, and we must not allow historical grievances, real or imagined, to be employed in defense of terrorism and murder. Above all, Muslims are people like all the others, and the average Muslim obsesses about such matters no more than the average American seethes about the Alamo. Muslims, on close inspection, turn out to have all the usual human frailties and complexes, not all of them conducive to peaceful coexistence.

The number of Muslims actually eager to wage jihad is small, but to deny that such sorts exist, and that they are motivated by a toxic brew of nihilism and aggression, in the name of Islam, is to perpetuate a dangerous lie. Moreover, opinion polling among Muslims, including in the West, quickly reveals that many of them strongly dislike lots of things about us, including Western sexual mores and Jews. There is nothing to be done about the issue of anti-Semitism at this point — the desire of some French Jews now to simply escape is sadly understandable — while Muslim discomfort about our post-modern ways is intractable unless we are willing to change who we are to appease relatively small, if vocal, numbers of newcomers. That matter will be left to voters, most of whom I doubt will be inclined to abandon their comfortable lifestyles to please angry foreigners on welfare who are responsible for a lot of street crime.

To sum up, the triumph of the WEIRD demographic in the West over the last half-century, so such post-moderns now dominate our scholarly, media and political elites, means that having a genuine discussion with Muslims appears impossible. While Christian Europe of the last century still had some common ground with believing Muslims, the gap today between our societal values and those of most Muslims is vast and cannot be overcome without huge changes, perhaps on both sides, that seem unlikely to happen without bloodshed.

To make matters worse, the only European country that is making an effort to appeal to normal people of faith in dangerous times is Vladimir Putin’s Russia. In the aftermath of the Paris attacks, the Kremlin, speaking through its religious mouthpieces, has staked out a clear position that terrorism is unacceptable, but so is intentionally offending religious people with blasphemy. In this formulation, Russia — and Russia alone — offers a welcoming home to Christians and Muslims alike, while driving extremists of all sorts, whether they be jihadists or Communist cartoonists, out of the public square. Religion is not the problem, Russia makes clear, and its support for traditional religions here is consistent — extremism is.

WEIRDos in the West naturally find all this a tad comedic, and they were mightily surprised when Pope Francis (“One cannot provoke; one cannot insult other people’s faith; one cannot make fun of faith”) came alarmingly close to towing the Kremlin line about Charlie Hebdo. Yet again, post-moderns were distressed to discover that the Pope of Rome is actually a Catholic. You have to be part of the WEIRD demographic to find it “shocking” when traditional religion stands up against aggressive blasphemy.

Europe is in real danger here. The possibility of mass violence, caused by jihadist insurgents who are painted as “criminals” by the political and media elite, is serious and the gross decline in European military strength since the end of the Cold War does not provide assurance that such messiness could be brought under control quickly. In that case, radicalization will beget counter-radicalization and grave violence between Muslims and native Europeans should be expected. In that case, madmen like Anders Breivik will turn out to be trendsetters of an odious kind. Here the progressive need to find Islamophobia,which seems to concern many on the Left more than armed jihadism, does not promote stability.

As Europe descends into chaos and violence, a dystopian future wanted by no sane person, who will be there to stave of total collapse? Some are already planning for this, quietly, but most of Europe is not — how can governments plan for something they dare not even name? — and we can expect NATO to be unready for what may be coming. Having participated in many defense exercises with NATO, I can state confidently that the very last thing the U.S. military wants to get caught up in is European chaos. If the German military,far too small to contain mass violence, appeals to Stuttgart, where the U.S. European Command is headquartered, for assistance, somehow emails will be lost and calls will be “missed.” It’s impossible to imagine Obama committing American troops to putting down Muslim riots and worse in Europe.

However, Vladimir Putin will be waiting by the phone, eager to “help” Europe in its time of troubles. Not to mention that Putin comes from the Russian secret police tradition, where you create problems in order to solve them. Kremlin wags are eager to remind everyone how many times Holy Russia has selflessly saved the continent from Western European madness, in 1814 and in 1945 in particular, and suddenly the man in Moscow will appear as a savior, a warrior of faith himself — not at all like Europe and America’s weak-willed elites — who can appeal to moderates of all sorts, Christian and Muslim alike, to reject violence and extremism. This scenario is fanciful only if you are blind to what Putin wants, and how bad the situation in Europe actually is. When a drowning Europe needs Putin’s urgent assistance, our WEIRD demographic may find out that history did not turn out quite as they had been promised.

[Weenie Pooh]

Mashallah... odakle početi. Recimo, ne vidim nigde da je ovo srednjeputaško mudrovanje igde potpisano?
 
WEIRD je jedna od onih cutesy skraćenica ili etiketa koje ništa konkretno ne znače. (Moja omiljena je "millennials" kojom možeš da opišeš ljude između 30 i 15 godina, praveći se da svi oni nešto imaju zajedničko.) Tako i ovo - nije dovoljno da kažeš "westerner" nego moraš da maskiraš u WEIRD, makar pričao o nečemu tako širokom kao što je sekularna srednja klasa - šta ima veze, i dalje mogu da prođu kao R. u poređenju sa onima koji nisu W. <_<

 

Dakle, opet se lupeta u Monolitnoj Muslimaniji i istoriji se prilazi po klasičnom cherry picking principu. "We have changed (u poslednjih 300 godina), Muslims have not." Opsada Beča i nije bila tako davno, a otomanska ekspanzija u Evropu je valjda bila posledica nekakvog džihada, ne standardni imperijalizam which was the style at the time
 

 
Onda, komotno odbija da prihvati činjenicu da je veliki deo onog što se danas u Evropi zove muslimanski ekstremista rođeno i odraslo u toj istoj Evropi. Uporno priča o nekom nepismenom imigrantu iz Afrike koji, eto, ne razume zapadno društvo jer je prost

 

Još fantastičnije, kao primer neuspele asimilacije navodi da mnogi muslimani u Evropi nisu prijateljski raspoloženi prema Izraelu Ima i primer svog prijatelja A. koji je inače normalan i naizgled asimilovan, ali "he is no fan of Israel" (!) A kao primer uspešne asimilacije muslimana u dobra stara vremena navodi činjenicu da su u Bosni za vreme WWI postojali muslimanski odredi carske vojske Eto vidite, u prošlom veku je hrišćanska Evropa imala common ground sa muslimanima, ali danas je svaki dijalog nemoguć

 

Završna predviđanja cenim bi mu garantovala Fox News gostovanja, ako je raspoložen: "All-out civil war — think more Mad Max than Gettysburg — cannot be ruled out at this juncture" Pa onda kako je to u stvari sve zavera Putina koji instrumentalizuje islam da bi se ugurao u Evropu, kao da pacifikuje džihadiste, jer će kad krene Mad Max scenario NATO naravno fejlovati a Obama ih odjebati

 

Sve u svemu

Edited February 1, 2015 by Weenie Pooh